The awkwardness of a philosophical approach, or manifesto against specialization

Philosophy is not a direct way to any end, not straightforward at all. If anyone is in the search for immediate and clear action, then philosophy is not the most suitable tool.

There will (must) always be a pursuance of an absolute value of truth under any philosophical exercise. Therefore, methodologies, tools, approaches from relativity, cannot be considered ends in themselves, within philosophy’s disciplinary scope.

The struggle of Philosophy is a constant tension between autonomy & heteronomy (ownness /alienation). It cannot rely on it’s own knowledge and the subject’s framework for the acquisition of a definite truth on any issue. Thought must, at many times, vanish, melt, blend with the object of study, and to some extent, even disappear, and let the essence of it emerge. For every time a new edge, tone, shade, is shown, the whole framework must be redefined.

Any specialization in any field of knowledge, being scientific or cultural, means some level of matching your own core vision, interests, and skills with respective necessities of Society, for which you would be recognized and paid. Under this scope, there’s little adaptation to a changing reality, with changing requirements.

All specialized professionals, researchers, prepare through their whole life to develop their careers in a predictable path. There is no other way to go in depth in any field. And the more specialized you become, the more you need to go deeper in that specific knowledge. There’s no way back.

From its’ predictability, security, and constructive underlying structure, specialization constitutes a comfort zone, in which the specialists already know both, questions and the ways that lead to the answers. There are hardly any surprises, and there is absolutely no room for changes or unexpected events. Everything must be utterly under control. But as in any conceptual framework, the closer you look at any particularity, the less vision you have of the general scope. So, the scientific approach leaves out great deal of issues, mostly and worryingly, a holistic approach to reality as a totality. This lack of general vision, would oblige to rely in the confidence that someone else, or some social entities, are looking after the common interest so you can concentrate in your small part of reality.

On the other hand, if you had spent your whole life embedded in any field of science, unless you had been very well trained and prepared to face a new conception of everything, it would be perceived as a threat. Moreover, you’ll even try to avoid the slightest idea of any changes in your environment, that could dismantle your reality. It could be said that scientists and specialists are reluctant to change, if coming from outside their field of knowledge.

I’m not saying we can do without specialization. Quite on the contrary, they are unavoidably necessary.

What I’m coming up with, is the notion that specialists should only address and be summoned for issues belonging to their own field of expertise.

Global, holistic, strategic and comprehensive matters ought to be left only to philosophers, who will search for the truth no matter what.